Tuesday, December 04, 2012

Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have made a foetus

His Grace would like to congratulate the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge on the announcement that they are expecting their first baby. Girl or boy, he or she is destined to ascend the Throne and reign over the United Kingdom (should it remain united) and the Dominions overseas.

But His Grace is puzzled.

Everywhere he turns he reads about a Royal baby. Even The Guardian talks of the couple 'expecting their first child', despite the Duchess being in the 'very early stages' of pregnancy. We are told that the couple 'are to be parents', and that this 'will be the Queen's third great-grandchild', and 'a first grandchild for Prince Charles'.

And the child's birthright is acknowledged: yes, he or she is 'destined to wear the crown one day'; he or she 'will become third in line to the throne', which the Prime Minister described it as 'absolutely wonderful news'. Even Ed Miliband tweeted: 'Fantastic news for Kate, William and the country. A royal baby is something the whole nation will celebrate.'

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, said: "The whole nation will want to join in celebrating this wonderful news. We wish the Duchess the best of health and happiness in the months ahead."

And speculation abounds about the name: Charles? Diana? With The Guardian freely referring to 'their baby' and already anticipating his or her 'first day at school'.

Surely such 'pro-choice' newspapers and journals (and people) should be talking about a bunch of pluripotent stem cells, an embryo or a foetus? For reports suggest that the Duchess is still in her first trimester, so this is not yet a baby; and certainly nothing with any kind of destiny. At this stage, surely, it is a non-person, just like the other 201,931 non-persons who last year were evacuated from wombs in England, Scotland and Wales.

Or are royal foetuses endowed with full humanity from the point of conception?

243 Comments:

After signing the lisbon treaty,the monarch has renounced its "royalty"and is now a private citizen,so talk of who will or will not be a future monarch is meaningless,and why should we celebrate the expected birth of yet another parasite,we have enough already from the dung heap of the third world to suck up the taxpayers money,when we should be sending both the violent illiterates and these huns back home.

Yes indeed, an excellent post and very important point. And even in several months when the bump on the mummy's tummy will be clear for all to see it will still be able to be chopped up and pulled out of the womb legally with no repercussions whatsoever.

Excellent post, indeed. But I would also have expected you to highlight the shocking speed with which ALL media comment I've seen has assumed a change in our constitution which has yet to even be debated by our Parliament. If such major consitutional change can be enacted by nothing more than a "feelgood" comment, what bulwarks are left against more sinister plots?

The specific issues of abortion aside, it does seem quite early to be planning its future so publically and talking about names when women can and do miscarry unfortunately. Some women seem prone to it too, and this is her first pregnancy.

Your Grace, in all humility, you sadly went up in flames before postmodernism enlightened the moral framework. Your thinking, I'm afraid, is hopelessly muddled. The nature and state of the fetal matter is an irrelevance. What matters is your narrative, which may be different from my narrative; therefore your truth may differ from mine.

The narrative of the Duke and Duchess, now happily caught up in the narrative of the entire nation, tells of a royal baby. Therefore the fetal matter is in truth a royal baby with all the trappings of personhood.

Most of the other 201,931 narratives (we so wish you'd stop bringing them up) did not contain a baby. Therefore, the foetal matter was in truth just that: a growth to be removed.

These two distinct but equally valid truths use distinct languages, sets of words, to describe what is going on and how we are to morally invest in it. Your Grace might object that this makes us a nation of moral toddlers, whose ethical judgements revolve entirely around our own needs, urges, desires and narrative rather than responsibility, duty, or moral absolutes. But, with all due respect, that is such a narrow-minded narrative; however, if that's what is true for you, then I do of course respect it as long as Your Grace doesn't attempt to impinge on my own freedom.

Unknown: "But I would also have expected you to highlight the shocking speed with which ALL media comment I've seen has assumed a change in our constitution which has yet to even be debated by our Parliament."

A change on the basis of equality. It seems obvious to me on the face of it that a change ought to be made but perhaps there are tangential issues which people don't yet realise?

Well said, thanks. From the over the top coverage in the media, it seems that the baby will be called Emmanuel/a . . . 'for unto us' etc. By the way if it's a girl, then does that mean that every title will now be inherited by first-born no matter which gender?

Royal foetuses are endowed with far better healthcare, better life expectancy, and a significantly better chance of becoming Duke/ Prince/ Earl of somewhere, so why not a superior nomenclature from conception?

The Duchess is a very wealthy person, so if she were to have an abortion she would earn the approbrium of many pro-choice people, who are only in favour of a woman's right to choose if you can make an argumentum ad misericordium for her.

This is a tacit admission of what everyone knows to be true - an unborn child is in fact a child. The legitimization of abortion has never turned on the ontological status of the unborn child. It has always depended upon a positive assertion of the autonomy of the adult. Its purpose is to allow adults to choose the obligations of parenthood, or not as they see fit. It is the ultimate guarantor of the separation of children from sex, and thus the ultimate guarantor of the sexual revolution. So don't be deceived. People know they are killing a child in abortion - just as surely as the Canaanites who practiced infant sacrifice knew they were killing children. They just think their own needs are paramount.

Now, I suspect you won't hear this from the pro-abortion crowd, but if I were to fashion their response to the question "Why can't Royals have an abortion?" I think it would take two lines of reasoning.

1. A Royal Baby is more than just a private event. It is in a larger sense a public event in the national life of the kingdom.

2. A woman who marries the heir to the throne - or who is in fact the heir to the throne - knows she has a public obligation to produce progeny, and so she has implicitly surrendered her rights by her prior actions.

I think this blog is in bad taste, particularly its title. the well-understood phrase "Expecting a baby" does not need any further interpretation and this is not the appropriate context to debate abortion laws. William and Kate have done the right thing by conceiving their child in marriage and it is obviously planned. They are also very fortunate to have plenty of money, and excellent health. Let's leave it there shall we?

I saw an announcement about the baby on an American "entertainment news" program -- mostly celebrity gossip -- last night. I was very surprised that the doctor they brought in to discuss whether the Duchess of Cambridge's hospital visit was important said that her condition is "potentially serious for both the mother and the fetus."

The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. However, this does nicely illustrate the problem that materialists encounter when dealing with parenthood and the responsibilities that attend. They have no conception of children as a blessing to be gratefully received. They see children rather as 'things' that have been created by human will. That which man creates he is free to destroy. This is why he so easily despises his children for the sake of money and leisure and other self-centered, self-interested, selfish pursuits.

You had better figure out some way to get your people to value their children. There are real tangible consequences to modern enlightened attitudes about adult autonomy. It's basic math. Every woman has on average 2.05 children or your civilization dies. What is the birthrate in England again? How long has it been below replacement? You could do with some recognition of children as blessings received from the hand of God.

DanJ0: the point is not the rights and wrongs of the constitutional change, rather the unseemly haste amongst influential journalists to ASSUME it's a foregone conclusion. There are without doubt significant negative and unforseeable consequences from a change: 1) it demonstrates the ease with which Parliament can interfere with the institution of monarchy in the name of "human rights"; 2) by using that basis for the change, it reminds us that the monarchy is unequal by nature; 3) it requires a change to the Act of Union, at a time when Scottish nationalists are attempting to secede from the Union, thereby creating a hornet's nest of potential conflict; 4) it runs the risk that some Commonwealth countries will use the change as an excuse to opt out of the monarchy altogether. I could go on. All I'm saying is that it's a very big deal changing the UK constitution (as we should all know from the vandalism of the Blair years) and I, for one, will always require very strong arguments to support it. A grown up debate is called for, not alas something of which this country is now capable.

@Julia Gasper - Although you may not intend this, your comment leaves the impression that people who do not have money or good health, and who conceive children at a time they did not plan to, are guilty of some form of wrongdoing.

I would never presume to speak for 'my people' or anyone else for that matter, how could I? I speak only for myself. As such I do not recognise myself as the person to whom you think your comments are valid.

If as I suspect you wish to lead a discourse in to your own territory of Calvanistic theology and deal in in rather distant and meaningless statistics and assumptions, I leave you to carry on speaking for your own nation without remark.

Unknown, isn't it pretty much a foregone conclusion? That is, isn't their assumption more or less correct?

To all intents and purposes, Parliament is actually sovereign. The monarchy is just a useful anachronism. I agree it reminds us that we can never be a true meritocracy while it remains but hey. They're too distant from us for most people to care though, really.

Nepal was a monarchy too until a few years ago. If the constitution is to be changed then there are always risks but hopefully it's more manageable here than in Nepal. But perhaps they are better off there nevertheless.

Amen Cranmer. I frequently have to complain to the BBC news about this. A pregnant women who loses her baby in unfortunate circumstances has her baby referred to as such. When the story is about abortion it is always about a foetus.

No right minded person ever speaks to a pregnant lady about her foetus, or asks when the foetus is due, or asks if she can feel her foetus kicking, or refers to them as being with-foetus.

Within the context of the debate in the U.S. the fundamental difference between "baby" and "fetus" is viability. If a child is wanted or planned or in any other way desired, the life is viable and the "baby" must be saved at all costs (the U.S. is very litigious). If a child is not wanted or planned or in any other way undesired, the life is unviable and can be disposed of.

Your Grace's observations are excellent. I hope the irony I picked up from the article was intended.

Peace and blessings brothers and sisters across the pond. God save the Queen. And, your Grace, +May our God and Father grant you the desire of your heart and make all your plans succeed, in and through Jesus Christ, by the power and working of the Holy Spirit. Amen.+

Now I understand what Malthus was bunning on about. I am descended from the Irish plebs so that makes me a miracle (i.e. I was actually allowed to be born). I have to thank the Catholic church for that just as England has to thanks Chesterton for small mercies.

Progrssive socialism has always struck me as a world turned on it's head.

"It (abortion) is the ultimate guarantor of the separation of children from sex, and thus the ultimate guarantor of the sexual revolution."

Ultimate, yes. The first line of defense is contraception and leads logically to abortion. The contraceptive pill is currently used by more than 100 million women worldwide and by almost 12 million women in the United States

And part of the mechanism of the pill is to prevent implantation of a ferilised egg in the woman's womb should its other mechanisms fail to prevent conception.

Add the above to 40-50 million women faced with an unplanned the pregnancy decide to have aworldwide abortions per year - 125,000 abortions per day - and we have a situation of mass murder on a truely hugh scale.

Julia Gasper said...

"I think this blog is in bad taste, particularly its title."

It's the abortion of children and the masking of this by the use of language, that is a scandal.

"William and Kate have done the right thing by conceiving their child in marriage and it is obviously planned. They are also very fortunate to have plenty of money, and excellent health."

The child Jesus was unplanned by Joseph and Mary and conceived out of wedlock. They were poor and homeless at the time of His birth and were refugees during his early childhood.

The white van that mysteriously appeared in a back street near William and Kate’s place overnight has been identified as a fully equipped and staffed mobile abortion unit provided by one of the pregnancy ‘advisory’ companies. The death nurse on board gushed “It would be marvellous to get something royal in the plastic bucket. It’s so important that Kate reviews all the options open to her”. As the Inspector walked away, she screamed after him “It’s a woman’s right, you know !”

Dodo. The are compelling arguments to ban abortion from midnight tonight. The people really are with us on this, so this man believes. But as soon as you mention banning contraception in the same presentation, that’s when people stand up and walk out the door. Think about it old chum...

Excellent your grace. How well some of us remember the 'Newspeak' when we went with our wives to confirm their condition. One moment it was "yes you are pregnant, the foetus is about X weeks, are you happy?" On receiving confirmation that the couple are delighted, 'Hey Presto' the foetus is suddenly a 'Baby'.

I believe that once life is started it does not cease if the baby dies. Perhaps one day humanity will be shown the great potential that was lost at the termination of a baby's life on Earth & many will be humble & ask forgiveness of their own Flesh & Blood that they rejected.

An apt time to reflect upon the massacre of the innocents, in a World of fear, hedonism & greed? But the will of God cannot be thwarted by human plans & the Christ child lived & fulfilled His Fathers will.Despite the Cross He conquered death & still lives to be the saviour of all who turn to Him.

What are your thoughts on the infant mortality rate in the United States? I have posed this question a few times (not here) and have yet to get a response from anyone. The rate seems to indicate that Americans stop caring once a baby is born.

Matt A. We need someone to sleep in the same room as the duchess during her confinement. That’s your job. Your commission is quite straight forward – to prevent any pregnancy advisory operative coming within aborting distance of her with a hand held portable abortion device.

Fall in that man.

The Inspector will shortly be setting up GHQ at the ‘Mouse and Wheel’, licensing laws permitting...

John, they used chains on British capital ships both wars on the watch. A fellow was expected to attach himself to the railings as required. Sadly, many dispensed with this obvious safety measure, presumably the inexperienced types who never appreciated the ferocity of waves, and were gone by the end of the shift.

Have managed to rearrange your shift with Cher. No problems there, one hopes..

"There is yet a lower sort of poetry and painting, which is out of nature; for a farce is that in poetry which grotesque is in a picture: the persons and actions of a farce are all unnatural, and the manners false; that is, inconsistent with the characters of mankind; grotesque painting is the just resemblance of this." (Dryden)

Farce is a perfectly appropriate response to your exposure of the right-on press' position.

Gentlemen. You were warned yesterday that this Blog could soon be terminated if the nursery school antics didn't stop.If you value the existence of this site I strongly recommend that a sense of sanity, if not sobriety is adopted. I remember that The good doctor left us for a time a while ago, & we were all much sadder for it's suspension.It must take time & effort to construct this rite daily so please show some respect for our host & STOP the stupidity.

Abortion and euthanasia are more intimately linked than even you have hinted at.

More abortions means a lower birth rate. A lower birth rate eventually means a smaller cohort of children than parents. And that in turn means a greater burden on the young to pay the pensions of the old. The young will want to escape that duty, you mark my words, and their own parents will have put in place the reasoning that will allow them to do it.

Mr Unknown @ 13.33 said, '4) it runs the risk that some Commonwealth countries will use the change as an excuse to opt out of the monarchy altogether. I could go on'

Not so. As you may be aware there are in total sixteen Realms, including the UK, that have HM Queen as Head of State. At the recent Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Perth, Western Australia, Dave announced the proposed changes to the rules of hereditary succession. All sixteen Realms signed up in principle, and the Dominion of New Zealand agreed to act as co-ordinator within the Commonwealth in order to facilitate any necessary constitutional amendments on a case by case basis.

It follows that sixteen heads of government have bound their nations to the monarchy and to amended rules of hereditary succession.

Using CIA Country Factbook numbers, the combined GDPs (purchasing power parity) of the UK, Canada, Australia and NZ are greater than that of Japan, the world's third largest economy. HM Queen is therefore a most significant personage and the Monarchy is an institution of global import. Indeed, one could argue that only the US President has more clout. The rise of China is impressive, but there must be real questions about stability of the regime and/or its representatives.

Looked at in this light, it is truly remarkable that the UK has allowed itself to be shackled by the likes of van Rompuy and the rest of the EU popinjays.

As this communicant repeatedly says, it is time to put the British ship of state about and turn again for the open sea.

If a woman wants to be pregnant she calls it a baby.If she doesn't want to be pregnant she calls it a foetus.The only difference is in what she calls it, but its status is always a baby on the way. That's truth.

Ireland is a lot more Europhile than commentators here give it credit for. It's also enormously more independent in its mindset, and won't be falling under the wing of the UK any time soon - even the suggestion of Anglo paternalism is enough to raise collective hackles.

It's also extremely likely to legalize abortion (or, for the pedantically minded, expand the limits of legal abortion) in the next year.

The problem with pointing out hypocrisy is that the winning side never cares about its own. Mind you for that matter, nor does the losing side most of the time: there's been a long documented trend of former "pro-lifers" ending up at the "Family Planning Clinic". For those of us who are men, that's a hypocrisy we won't be falling into - but were biology reversed, I doubt there would be a significant difference.

So the question really is, what does one do? How does one reconcile the systematic disregard for the sanctity of life which is increasingly enthroned in modern society with genuine defence of the sanctity of both mother and child?

I agree with Preacher's remarks, and would say it accords with some of the testimonies I've heard over the years; so I don't take the existential despair route as the only one. Nor, though, is mere legislation enough - because people have been procuring abortions since the year 0 (and actually quite a bit longer). It might bring down the numbers, but it won't attend to the issue which lies at the heart of the matter: how we understand the value of human life.

The person calling himself "The Way of Dodo" clearly does not know the difference between bad taste and a scandal. To drag the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge into a polemic of this nature is not going to change anybody's mind on this perpetually thorny subject.He also writes "The child Jesus was unplanned by Joseph and Mary and conceived out of wedlock." Wrong, actually. Joseph and Mary were betrothed, which means that they had gone through an irreversible verbal marriage contract that was simply waiting to be consummated. By marrying they had of course "planned" to have children as the two things were synonymous. You might turn out to be infertile, but by marrying (which betrothal was) you had set out on the path to having children.How few people these days understand anything that is in the Bible.

The problem, as I see it, is that the Church has become so weakened it cannot counter the emergance of hedonism and a social ethic based on consequentialism. This is the 'gospel' the preached by our State and through its organs, including the media.

Can God change hearts without the 'soil' being first prepared so that His Spirit takes root? I guess the answer to this one depends on your understanding of scripture and the dynamic between hearts and mind.

Increasingly, Christians are portrayed as 'loons' or 'bigots' with out-dated beliefs - even by nominal christians. This is unlikely to change without some major transforming event.

Ehem I think you're missing the point...Pro-Choice doesn't at all mean "anti-baby! There is nothing more wonderful than a happy couple who are pregnant and more than willing to commit their lives to a child! Lord knows that the Duke and Duchess' baby will be treated like royalty (literally :P). And you said yourself, they are EXPECTING a baby. Everything is in the future tense. Just because a pro-choice woman is pregnant it doesn't mean she can't and won't plan for its future because she thinks "it's just a bunch of stem cells after all". It seems just foolish to base an argument on that. Please open your mind a bit to women who are really really not ready to be mothers. It's not fair to look down on them just because your beliefs command you to. It seems like it would be a better use of minds and resources to help people and children who are already alive and who need help than having pro-life groups preaching on the streets every weekend. I, for one, have had enough of it.

Probably. Just makes the choices clearer for those of us who do call God Lord and King. I experienced something of a personal paradigm shift reading a comment from Carl yonks back about how whining to government is really rather silly, when in fact we should just face the reality that Christ has been kicked out of the courts of the realm and adjust our behaviour accordingly.

The good news is that Christ never left the streets, and started from something of an outsider's position Himself. Our tasks, commandments, and commission haven't altered one bit: merely the extent to which we have to be a little bit more cunning when out among the wolves (though fortunately not as cunning as our brethren under a rather more material set of threats around the world).

It may interest you to know that Ireland has one of the best provisions of maternity care anywhere in the Western world - so much so that its modern physicians and obstetricians have publically expanded the view that abortion is not medically necessary with the standard of medical knowledge we possess. Nothing like a shortage of quick-fix solutions to focus the mind.

That does of course leave the economic and social (and in the case of rape, criminal) reasons for permitting abortion - but it also allows abortion to be put in its proper sphere of morality. Indeed, it's somewhat ironic that the advances in medical science decrease the need for abortion as a response to dangerous conditions, even though abortion has unthinkingly been adopted as a sign of advancement.

But the simple fact is that a great many churches are doing precisely the kind of things you outline in unspoken and unsung ways.

I get the impression that you haven't spent all that much time around women who are pregnant. They do not speak in the future tense about that baby they are carrying. They speak in the present tense. I know a woman with four children. She lost her second child to a miscarriage at four months. She was so devastated she refused to let the child's name be used for any of her subsequent children lest the child seem to have never existed. The grief she felt over that lost child was not related to a future expectation but to a present loss. I know another woman who lost her first son to wastage two days before he was to be born. She was required to give birth to a corpse. The funeral she held for that child was not a funeral for a future expectation but for her first son - a son she never saw take a breath. To a pregnant woman, the baby is always present tense. She doesn't say "My fetus." She says "My baby." Unless of course she wants to kill it. Then it becomes a mass of cells. De-personalization makes it far easier to kill.

I guess I haven't spent a lot of time around pregnant women carl, but I do know someone had a miscarriage too and I know that it's devastating. Having a life inside you and then it's gone with nothing you can do to save it, I understand that. I completely agree that de-personalisation certainly makes it easier to go through with an abortion, but of the pregnant women I have known, none of them named their baby until it was born so I can't relate to that and yes they call it "their baby" of course they do! I would too. What I was saying is that the article made it seem like it was laughing at hypocrisy of pro-choice, like it's saying: "Ha look at that; pro-choice people calling it a baby and saying it has a future, when according to them it's just some cells". And I don't agree that pro-choice people are so, as I already said, "anti-baby". If you choose to be pregnant then of course you start planning and thinking of names. Just because you decide to call it a baby, still doesn't mean it's alive yet. And if you do read the article again, you might see how all the quotations are in fact the future tense: "will become third in line to the throne" "will be the Queen's third great-grandchild". It's not so weird to speak like that, even from the pro-choice liberals.

I recently worked with a young woman in local authority care who aborted her child - everyone said it was the "sensible" thing to do.

A funeral service was requested and held, something I was surprised was available for 3 month old unborn child not regarded as a person and, to me, it seemed strange given she had initiated the death and wanted to mourn its death. There is a grave and a headstone which she visits regularly.

I don't get it john. You think that pro-choice equals anti-life and pro-death don't you? Pro-choice doesn't mean that one is obliged to have an abortion if they got pregnant because they're not 100% opposed to it for other people. I'll steal a quote from the internet here; "Being pro-choice is much more than just being pro-abortion. It's being pro-women's lives, health, and rights."

And Clegg and co want to override the Bill of Rights as soon as possible, problem is that it is not an ordinary statute and one of the key portions being when wanting to allow a Roman Catholic to accede to the throne is:

And whereas it hath been found by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this Protestant kingdom to be governed by a popish prince, or by any king or queen marrying a papist, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do further pray that it may be enacted, that all and every person and persons that is, are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold communion with the see or Church of Rome, or shall profess the popish religion, or shall marry a papist, shall be excluded and be for ever incapable to inherit, possess or enjoy the crown and government of this realm and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging or any part of the same, or to have, use or exercise any regal power, authority or jurisdiction within the same; and in all and every such case or cases the people of these realms shall be and are hereby absolved of their allegiance.

So in essence it means by trying to usurp this law they negate all laws given Royal Assent.

Every time I have unkind thoughtsabout you (euphemism) I must remind myself of what you do for a job. All these years of horror and you still retain humour,not a bad achievement for someone who is exposed to such frightful things.

Communicating with the misfits on Cranmer's blog is my only experience of being directly in contact with blatent viciousness and hatred.Even though I am fortunate in knowing that I will never meet these types in my everyday existence,it has been an interesting learning curve.

Apart from being a rigorous workout of muscle tone it has made me very appreciative of much I take for granted.

Ensty's version of " Once I Had A Secret Love" will always remain the highest point of crack up humour that I have enjoyed on here. Thanks Blossom.

... but I do know someone had a miscarriage too and I know that it's devastating. Having a life inside you and then it's gone with nothing you can do to save it, I understand that.

Emphasis mine. You admit that there is a life inside the woman. You understand the grief that proceeds from the end of that life. And yet you would snuff it out as if you were removing an appendix. What is this life to which you refer that warrants no protection by the law?

I completely agree that de-personalisation certainly makes it easier to go through with an abortion...

I am amazed at the admissions you are willing to make. If it's not a person, then why should it need to be depersonalized? Do we routinely depersonalize tonsils?

... but of the pregnant women I have known, none of them named their baby until it was born so I can't relate to that ...

Naming a child is an immensely significant act in the life of parents. There is considerable give and take between husband and wife over names, and often the task is not faced until close to birth. In my own case, I wanted to name my first son David Paul in honor of my brother. But I had only daughters, so the name was never used. My wife and I therefore had to agree on names for girls, but the name for a boy was fixed from the beginning. It's also true that many children will not be named until the gender is known, and many couples don't want to know. Each couple's experience will be different. You will note that none of this has anything to do with the ontology of the child. It is simply the reality of practical experience.

... What I was saying is that the article made it seem like it was laughing at hypocrisy of pro-choice, like it's saying: "Ha look at that; pro-choice people calling it a baby and saying it has a future, when according to them it's just some cells".

No, that wasn't the point at all. The point is that the description of the unborn child changes with the context. A pregnant woman who wants to be pregnant has a baby. A pregnant woman who doesn't want to be pregnant has a fetus.

And I don't agree that pro-choice people are so, as I already said, "anti-baby".

No, they are just more 'pro adult autonomy' than 'pro baby.' Abortion is intended to give adults the ability to accept or reject the responsibilities of parenthood. It has nothing at all to do with whether the child is viable, or an actual person, or a living human being. It is about freeing adults from the specter of imposed obligation. Sex traditionally comes with imposed obligations. The sexual revolution did away with all that - and the consequences are all around us.

If you choose to be pregnant then of course you start planning and thinking of names.

"If you choose..?" You see, that is the problem. You think that the choice to live a sexual life can be severed from the obligation to receive and raise children. That's the imposed obligation that is being removed. And it's being removed by the effective expedient of killing the child.

Just because you decide to call it a baby, still doesn't mean it's alive yet.

Did you not say in your first sentence that it was alive? As in "Having a life inside you and then it's gone with nothing you can do to save it..." So it's simultaneously alive and yet not alive. Please explain. And if it's not a baby, then what is it? A weed? A chimpanzee? A stalagmite? Tell me of the ontological boundary between conception and birth that when crossed moves the child from less than-human-fetus to fully-human baby. In fact there is no such boundary. The boundary is biologically arbitrary and intended only to facilitate a legal determination. "Before this time, you can kill the child to avoid the responsibility of caring for it."

I'm still a little concerned about the welfare of the Duchess here. There was someone on the local news here who suffered the same thing as she is suffering now and she says she lost 2 stone in the process. It's not as though the Duchess has surplus there. I suppose she'll have the best medical care available but it would be pretty grim if she loses it in such a largely pointless glare of publicity.

I have to say that I don't see anything particularly hypocritical about anticipating and talking of a baby when someone is pregnant if one is pro-choice. If the pregnancy goes smoothly then a zygote eventually becomes a baby the parents can hold at the end. The deliberate termination of a pregnancy is a moral act, it involves issues of right and wrong. It's not a harm-free act and, to my mind, the harm increases as the pregnancy progresses. As soon as the zygote is formed, there's life. Not a life as such, but life nonetheless. More importantly, there's potentially a life with a subjective, experiencing future unless nature, 'fate', or a deliberate act stops it along the way. What the media and the people involved are anticipating is that future subjective, experiencing life even though it is still at the foetal stage now. It's hardly a strange anomaly to anticipate that and still hold a pro-choice position generally.

"Ensty's version of " Once I Had A Secret Love" will always remain the highest point of crack up humour that I have enjoyed on here. Thanks Blossom."

You are too kind, my dear. Old Ernst never descends to vulgar vileness (as has been expressed ad nauseuem over the weekend and led to HG threatening to close his blog. As I hadn't felt well all weekend I at least had the hope of enjoying his august and thought provoking blog on my return) but would rather make a measured retort that produces a thought and a chuckle.

Ernst truly despairs sometimes on the nonsense and hatred spouted on here that achieves nothing. When has such behaviour ever changed a mind by someone saying after a tirade 'You know, when you put it like that...?!'.

It's hardly a strange anomaly to anticipate that and still hold a pro-choice position generally.

The anomaly of this post is that a human who's potential is to be aborted is called a fetus, but the human who's potential is anticipated is called a baby. A baby is a young human. A fetus (in this instance) is an unwanted by-product of sexual intercourse. Yet they are the same entity.

The pro-choice position needs this anomaly because currently most moral relativists do not make the case for killing unwanted babies, therefore they remove fetuses instead.

William: "The anomaly of this post is that a human who's potential is to be aborted is called a fetus, but the human who's potential is anticipated is called a baby. A baby is a young human. A fetus (in this instance) is an unwanted by-product of sexual intercourse. Yet they are the same entity."

In both highlighted cases, they're a sparkle in the eye, egg and sperm on a collision course, zygote, embryo, blastocyst, or foetus depending on the stage of develoment you're talking about. They are indeed the same entity at that point. The inference here is that all of those are a baby when in reality they are not. No-one would mistake an embryo for a baby if both were left side by side in a cot. It's the work of imagination to talk about a baby in (say) the first trimester. Would-be parents are imagining a future newborn when they call the foetus a baby. And why not? There's no great philosophical revelations or shocks in the article, it's just rhethoric to draw attention to the different considerations of the same foetus depending on the intended future outcome.

William: "The pro-choice position needs this anomaly because currently most moral relativists do not make the case for killing unwanted babies, therefore they remove fetuses instead."

You're essentially begging the question there. They're making the case for preventing a future baby, or the killing of a potential baby. As are advocates of contraception in the first case. The real issue for people to my mind is the relatively rare case of third trimester abortion.

Why these philosophical distinctions about the nature of life in an unborn child? Because they desire to kill. Why do they desire to kill? Because they do not want to provide care. So they create arbitrary philosophical distinctions to justify their desires. In the absence of the desire to kill, there would exist no need for these distinctions. Always, always, always it returns to the desire of the parent to kill the child to whom he is obligated.

Of course, the arbitrary boundary is arbitrary for a reason. Human life is a continuum. There is no discrete occurrence beyond conception that marks the change from 'insignificant life' to 'significant life.' The boundary can be placed at the convenience of the adult. Serious people have seriously suggested the boundary be placed after birth so that unwanted outcomes can be avoided. But of course this isn't typically well-received because such a boundary definition could also threaten the self-interest of the adult. He wishes to kill without setting a precedent that could get himself killed in turn.

Always it returns to the desire to kill. Always. "I will kill you lest I be required to care for you." All else is eyewash.

In both highlighted cases, they're a sparkle in the eye, egg and sperm on a collision course, zygote, embryo, blastocyst, or foetus depending on the stage of develoment you're talking about. They are indeed the same entity at that point. The inference here is that all of those are a baby when in reality they are not.

Most people, including doctors, nurses and first trimester sonographers, would say that when a woman is pregnant there is a young human growing inside her and will use the common parlance "baby". That is the reality however much your pro-abortion stance seeks to distort it.

A sparkle, egg or sperm is neither a growing human nor a baby. I have never claimed this so you can keep your straw man.

A zygote is a growing human. It is growing in the sense that young animals grow and it is human in the sense that its species is human.

I am not pro-abortion, you're indulging yourself. Accepting justifications for war does not make me pro-war either.

"A sparkle, egg or sperm is neither a growing human nor a baby. I have never claimed this so you can keep your straw man."

A sparkle in the eye, egg and sperm on a collision course, zygotes, embryos, blastocysts, and foetuses are all about potential people. Equivocating between 'things' and 'potential things' leads to this sort of quirk, I think. I'm sure we both know this article is essentially just about the use of language here. The underlying issues are exactly the same as ever, and around here they follow from religious assumptions which aren't universally held.

Zygotes are not unborn children. If they are removed from the womb then they don't suddenly become children. We know what children are. They're people. We don't mistake embryos for children if they're handed to us.

"The underlying issues are exactly the same as ever, and around here they follow from religious assumptions which aren't universally held."

Knowing your aversion to such, I don't tend to converse with you from the basis of my religious assumptions, but am content merely to point toward the natural consequences of your nihilistic materialism. Which, by the way, is far from universally held.

Oh I realise that. The issue almost always turns around personhood. One can of course be anti-abortion without being religious. One can also be religious and be pro-choice. However, around here putting personhood at the point of conception is almost always informed by religious ideas. If I truly thought an embryo was a person morally equivalent to a baby or, indeed, an adult then I'd be horrified by its destruction on the basis of some sort of calculus which ignores its equal right to life. But I don't.

Whether a newspaper or media outlet’s owner declares to be anti or pro-abortion or refers to a foetus or a baby is immaterial. It makes little or no difference to what or how they express themselves as the matter is in my opinion, is a deeply personal issue for the woman involved. It is the anti-abortion lobby who are guilty of distorting the message of language by developing the emotive sneering notion, characteristic of religious guilt lading, that seeks to infer that referring to an unborn human by its correct term, is something of a rouse by the medical profession to avoid equating themselves to that of murders rather than medical practitioners effecting an abortion. There are many widely recognised words available that describe life forms in various stages of progression. A seed is a seed not a plant or a tree. An egg is an egg not a chicken. A tadpole is a tadpole not a frog. As we all know the egg of a butterfly or moth once fertilised fertilised, grows, hatches and lives as a caterpillar and then as a pupa before developing and emerging as a fully formed replica of its parent species. None of the words used to convey our understanding of the processes infer anything other than what it (the life form) is at given point in its time.The argument that life begins at the point of conception in my opinion, is weak and disingenuous in this debate in as much that while it is undeniably true barring a genetic defect that a potentially viable life begins at ovum fertilisation, it then requires a period of healthy cell development before it reaches the stage for a viable birth. During this time, natural abortion or as some would have it’ Godly intervention of the life form may occur. But if the morality of the act of man-made abortion is the question, why then should we accept it without apportioning blame or guilt when it happens either naturally or as some would again have it, as an act of divine ordination? Is it still to be seen as an act of a loving God or just a flaw of His ‘intelligent’ design ability to allow ectopic development for instance, or that severe deformation or death may occur before birth or even that some women are born to be barren?What drives a woman to abort is not as black and white as some observers would prefer it to be. It is not the same as the woman committing murder or being accessory to murder in the legal context. There are many women for whom making such a serious decision has ruined or even ended in taking their own life. And then of course there are many more others who have used the procedure as a form of late birth control, which was not the intended purpose of the legalisation; and it is that at this point at which I tend to oppose the call for blanket legitimacy. It is our laws and their application that defines what is acceptable in society and by implication, what kind of society we are. In this instance I would welcome a revision of the law that redefines the time limit and specific reasons why an abortion is deemed permissible and lawful. It should be borne in mind (as His Grace will attest) that at one time, to burn alive, so called witches and heretics at the lawful behest of the Church, or to hang a man with a priest in attendance for stealing, they were hardly a moral acts by humanistic standard then or today and it was man that changed the law. The iniquity of religious people to impose their will on all others whether of a different religious calling or none, is what I would call a truly immoral act.

Zygotes contain all the genetic information necessary to form a new individual. It is human life in the making.

After fertilization the "zygote" (human life) travels down the fallopian tube. Zygotes (human life), given the chance, will develop into a blastocyst (human life), and are then termed an embryo (human life), and then a fetus (human life).

All words to describe a wonderful biological process from conception through to birth.

If doctors asked: "Would you like me to kill the human life that is developing within you?" this would reflect the reality of abortion. Instead, we use medical and biological terms inappropriately for the potential child - a "zygote" a "blastocyst", an "embryo", and a "fetus".

Today 125,000 potential children were killed in their mothers wombs and disposed of.

How many were mourned or have graves to mark their passing from this life to the next?

I suggest a monument be erected outside St Paul's. The 'Tomb of Unknown Child' so these victims are never forgotten.

Carl, as a Calvinist, for you, presumably it's all just degrees of potential? Since you believe in predestination, a wife "having a headache" rather than fulfilling her marital duty could be construed as a form of contraception in frustration of God's plan!

What if God had intended conception to occur as a result of the union - chaos! Would you honestly attach the same punishment to a wife withholding sex in frustration of God's plan to someone who killed an adult in cold blood? Of course not. But if a union was predestined to result in a child, aren't you just using a different flavour of eyewash?

Henry VIII is still a person now, though he's dead. And I'm not talking about some sort of spirit either. The dead have rights, after a fashion. There's a really interesting area of philosophy about identity. The tough question is whether a baby with anencephaly is a person or not. In practical terms, I think we assign it personhood knowing that it will die shortly but I don't think it truly does. I'm comfortable with a decision by the pregnant woman to abort it in the third trimester, or to give birth to it and provide medical care afterwards. Killing it after birth is more difficult because we're in the area of practical ethics rather than just morality.

"If I truly thought an embryo was a person morally equivalent to a baby or, indeed, an adult then I'd be horrified by its destruction on the basis of some sort of calculus which ignores its equal right to life."

The reality is that such a calculus does happen. The calculus is: does the mother want the embryo or not? If she does then the embryo does indeed attain the moral equivalence of a baby and is called such by all concerned. If she does not then the embryo has the moral equivalence of a fetus and is aborted. That is the anomaly.

1. There is in the UK no legal right to abortion. Immunity from prosecution is allowed if two doctors "in good faith" allow the abortion. In many cases they don't even see the patient in question. Worse still I've heard of Christian doctors who will sign the forms because someone else will anyway. The law in this area is being regularly broken.

2. The birth rate in this country is in crisis, as it is in most of the rest of Europe (I think France is the exception as it gives tax breaks for having three children). If we were to have another pandemic like Spanish flu this would wipe out a huge amount of the population, and it would be the youth that would be most hit (sorry Darwin you were wrong on survival of the fittest as you were on many things...)

William: "If she does then the embryo does indeed attain the moral equivalence of a baby and is called such by all concerned."

But it doesn't have the moral equivalence. Doctors will usually save the mother over the child in a dilemma. If there are significant abnormalities which are picked up in the third trimester then the pregnancy may still be terminated if the mother changes her mind ie. the foetus will be killed. That's the area where there are significant moral dilemmas to my mind.

Jon: Without diverting this thread to a discussion about Calvinism, which is probably not useful, I thought I might respond briefly to your comment made to Carl, sharing as I do his predestinarian theology: a wife "having a headache" rather than fulfilling her marital duty could be construed as a form of contraception in frustration of God's plan!

This is oddly perverse, as the very point of predestination is that God's will cannot be thwarted. If this woman is predestined to have sex, then God will also predestine the appropriate conditions for this, such as not having a headache.

Would you honestly attach the same punishment to a wife withholding sex in frustration of God's plan to someone who killed an adult in cold blood?

Apart from the fact that God's decree can't be thwarted, it is also unknown to us except insofar as it has been inscripturated. So it's hardly functionally equivalent, as murder in cold blood tends to leave more signs...

Mr Unknown @ 16.01 says,'The birth rate in this country is in crisis.'

Precisely.

As Carl Jacobs has already pointed out in this thread, unless each woman bears 2.05 children, the nation is headed for extinction. The British government shows no sign of recognising this fact. It completely ignores that most births are to the mothers of third world immigrants. There is apparently no policy option for dealing with the inevitable conclusion that at some point the White British, as defined by the census, will become an ageing minority within the UK. Other European countries such as Germany and Italy, both with birthrates of around 1.3 children per woman, are in an even worse state.

Perhaps Britain should follow the French policy and hope for a renaissance, so to speak.

Unknown is right. There is no abortion on demand in this country. Perhaps after the police have finished interviewing the ‘victims’ of ‘Jimmy the dead nonce’ who have been queuing up to complain his hand was on their thigh for more than two seconds, perhaps they can arrest a few million women in the UK for ‘illegally procuring an abortion by lying about their mental health’. Let’s see the criminal justice system sort this one out...

Be rather an idea to discover another Australia to send them all to, what !

By the way, the Inspector was minded not to post here again having had words with the Archbishop, but you can’t keep a good taig down...

Mr AIB commented @ 23.24 4/12 'Ireland is a lot more Europhile than commentators here give it credit for. It's also enormously more independent in its mindset, and won't be falling under the wing of the UK any time soon - even the suggestion of Anglo paternalism is enough to raise collective hackles.'

Now this communicant accepts that this opinion is well informed and astute. However, two EU proposals seemed destined to transform Irish attitudes to the EU from philia to phobia. These proposals are the imminently mooted banking union and the attendant surrender of national budgetary control to the EU.

The Irish have already surrendered their currency. The EU is now planning to take control of their banking system and their right to manage their economy. When did the Irish agree to this?

As Boris Johnson points out, this is profoundly undemocratic. At some point this communicant anticipates that the Irish will do the math. They will realise that they represent just one per cent of the population of an undemocratic monolith and that they have traded their sovereignty for that privilege.

The Irish may then look for a more congenial political arrangement.

One also notes that Dave, if The Times is reporting correctly, is so spooked by UKIP that he is about to announce an EU referendum.

A number of interconneted 'ifs' here, but if the referendum marks a clean break between Britain and the EU to Free Trade Agreement status only, may not Ireland wish to follow, amongst others?

The population of this small island with its limited resources and infrastructure will reach 70 million by 2050. The government is already looking to build the equivalent of two more areas the size of London on greenfield land. The fact that responsible couples plan the size of their families to match their ability to support them is to their great merit not detraction. It is not the gross total number we need to consider, it is the ability and suitability of the industry of the nation to allow them the means and opportunity to support themselves and contribute to the exchequer. We need quality not quantity.

The average population density for England and Wales was 371 people per square kilometre. This compares with France (146), Germany (197), Italy (185) and Spain (89).

Your view is an interesting contrast to that of AIB, Mr Inspector @ 21.17.

Whom to believe?

This communicant suspects that within their heart of hearts the Irish may already know the answer, but it is too early for them to go public with it. So for many it is safer to keep mouthing the old lines.

However, within a decade we may see a joyous reunion on mutually acceptable terms.

Indeed, hound tinged blue. You must appreciate Belfast looks down on the rebel Irish state from where he stands. The Inspector looks up and seeks a common destiny for the people of the British Isles...

There's certainly a lot of euroscepticism in Ireland, and an increasing level of hostility to the EU - it's just that it doesn't necessarily translate into the same kind of politics that we get here in the UK. One of the most anti-EU parties is Marxist Sinn Féin. Whereas in the UK it's the right that has largely dominated the Eurosceptic movement, with the left following on, it's the reverse in Ireland, with the left leading the charge.

Inspector:

"You must appreciate Belfast looks down on the rebel Irish state from where he stands."

Speaking as a woman, Vulpix, if you are already pregnant you are already a mother even when the child (foetus) is in vitro, your remark "Please open your mind a bit to women who are really really not ready to be mothers" who are already pregnant is a nonsense. She is already a mother and she either carries her child to term or she kills it. It is as simple and stark as that. And if she kills it she will go to hell, emotionally in this life and literally in the next unless she finds the saving grace of our LORD Jesus Christ by repentance of her sins and belief on Him.

"What happened in the 60's that caused the birth rate in Europe to suddenly plummet and Christianity after a long decline 200 years after the French Revolution to become almost irrelevant?"

Thee 'Summer of Love' in 1967 - the Hippie Revolution. The Flower Children with their new ideas, values, behaviors spread to across the America, Canada, Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan.

"All You Need Is Love", the antehem of the revolution, was performed by The Beatles on 'Our World', the first live global television link watched by 400 million in 26 countries on 25 June 1967.

I've said it before - Hinduism, morphed with Buddhism and a touch of LSD and marijuana.

Inspector you are right ... "If the Irish were given a referendum to re-join the UK, with a devolved parliament, is what the Fenians always wanted" see

Daniel O'Connell of Ireland, The LiberatorValiant Irish Politician Battled for Catholic Emancipation in the Early 1800s. His great goal was to repeal the Act of Union, the 1801 law which had dissolved the Irish Parliament and politically united Ireland with Great Britain. Much to his despair, he was never able to see "Repeal" become a reality.

http://history1800s.about.com/od/leaders/a/danoconnellbio.htm

The British made a huge mistake, which cost them control of Eire and much trouble besides, in dissolving the Irish parliament in 1801.

The other defining event in June 1967 was the 'Six-Day War' fought between Israel and the Arab nations of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Algeria, and others contributed troops and arms to the Arab forces. Following the war, the territory held by Israel expanded significantly ("The Purple Line"): The West Bank (including East Jerusalem) from Jordan, Golan Heights from Syria, Sinai, and Gaza from Egypt.

You must be psychic. Those examples you posted are exactly what I had in mind when I questioned what happened in the late 60's that led to the moral meltdown of the West during that era and is still with us today and will be for generations to come. The social diseases you mentioned, and that's what they were because they destroyed lives and wrecked our value system perhaps permanently, left the West morally crippled and organized religion has become almost (but not completely) irrelevent.

You know the mantra from that era "Sex, Drugs,and Rock'n Roll".

Today in 2012 when parents discover their 12 year old smoking hashish in the attic with his friends they can thank the culture of the late 1960's and all it has given us which will continue to plague society and tear us apart. Perhaps forever.

BitB said :Euthenasia is being practised at conception and in old age, so it would seem royal feotus are exempt at both ends of the scale

I seem to remember a story that the last king, when he was dying, was helped on his way with an overdose of morphine from the royal physician so as to allow the BBC to make an announcement of the king's death at a convenient time.

Mr AIB @ 22.54, recalling the recent Irish GE, yes, the Shinners distinguished themselves with an anti-EU platform. But working on the premise that most politicians can switch policies in mid-sentence without the audience noticing, one would expect Fine Gael or Fianna Faille to steal the Shinners thunder should the need arise.

Your Grace,I had a thought on my way home this week following the previous comment trail and your remarks above.You Grace might wish to consider a link to a 'Cranmer Chat room' (whatever that is) for the adolescents who follow this blog and only want to trivialise everyone and everything.

For those who wish to make serious comment, they could leave a cash deposit with you of say five or ten pounds and with each comment submitted, 50p or £1 is deducted from their cash balance.

Comments would rapidly be limited to serious considered discussion.It would also be a little source of income to keep up your steeple and maintain your pulpit.

Mr Magee @ 23.17 asks, 'What happened in the 60's that caused the birth rate in Europe to suddenly plummet and Christianity after a long decline 200 years after the French Revolution to become almost irrelevant? Prosperity and materialism?'

We could have a long conversation about the factors leading to high fertility in mammalian populations. As a general rule, a sense of well-being in females is conducive to pregnancy. Trouble is, the majority of the first world has enjoyed a high living standard for so long that deprivation has been unknown for sixty years, or two generations. The law of diminishing returns seems to apply and other factors may be at work. This communicant suspects that the environmental pessimism and negativity of the Greens, who greatly influence the young, may be a discouragement. Before the Greens, groups like the CND were spreading dismay, in the UK at least.

In addition, with increasing urbanisation, many first world populations are totally divorced from the cycle of life and death in the countryside. This leads to truly amazing ignorance of the risks inherent in any life support system like a city, and over-confidence that society will provide come what may. Maybe we need the occasional Hurricane Sandy to remind major conurbations of their mortality. As an aside, this over-confidence may lead us to secularism, so brilliantly described as 'self-creation' by Carl Jacobs.

What seems significant is that the same trends now seen in Europe are evident in first world Asian populations, specifically Japan and the very rich, ethnically Chinese, city-states of Hong-Kong and Singapore. In all three the birthrate is under 1.3 children per woman. The government of Singapore frets about Indian migrants and the possibility of Singapore ceasing to be majority Chinese. Similarly in Hong Kong, the beautifully spoken and very British pre-hand-over population are hostile to mainland Chinese immigrants (who they need to do the dirty work). But both Hong Kong and Singapore despite offering astonishing material comforts are starting to consume their populations.

In neither of these two cities could the French Revolution, the decline of Christianity or the counter-cultural revolution of 1967 be regarded as socially significant.

It was understood in medieval times that cities consumed their populations, largely through plagues and the like. Replacements from the countryside were easy to come by in those days. But in the absence of large rural populations following the demise of horse-drawn agriculture there are no longer farm-boys seeking their fortunes in the Smoke.

Way of Dodo asks, Is an adult with dementia a person?Must be, as so many of them are posting here. Actually Danjo is at least partly right in that none of the press reports talk of a "baby" in existence now. They talk of a baby who will be in existence by next July. That is no more inconsistent than to say that when a boy baby is born, he will one day be a man.I am intrigued to find that Way of Dodo is a fundamentalist who believes literally in the Virgin birth. How then do you explain that the commonest title Jesus is given in the New Testament is "Son of David"? See Matthew 9:27 and Luke 18.39. His descent from King David through his father Joseph was taken for granted by his contemporaries, until Graeco-Roman myth-makers got hold of the story at least 150 years later.

"CressidaThank you for your kind words, although I admit to feeling somewhat jealous of the praise heaped on Ernsty." oohh, the fabled green eye?

From Ernst and 'those' naughty 7 Hoods

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwCYBJe0o2M

You've either got or you haven't got style!

Ernst: Some Dickie's express 'cause they digress when they express,But Dodo just expresses to impress a cloistress.Tiddles: It's only a hunch but I bet you a bunch.Meow!Ernst: He wears Blue Scapular, a rosary and carry's his own lunch,

Tiddles:From the tip of his toes to the beak on his head,Ernst:He looks like an unmade blog bed.

Ernst: You've either got or you haven't got style, Tiddles: got or you haven't got style.Ernst: If you got it, it stands out a mile, Tiddles: if you got it Ernst, it stands out a mile.

Ernst: Wearing mother of pearl, a kind of Cockney button,Tiddles: You look like a Romish Pastor whose bought oirish mutton.

Ernst: You either got or you haven't got class, Tiddles: got or you haven't got class.)Ernst: How it draws the applause of the mass-es (oops).

When you wear those duds with a smile and diamond studs,Watch those trolls lining up single file.or when you wear lapels coz Ernsts's the swellest of swellsyou can pass any blog thread and smile.

***Big Finale with leg/paw kicking***

Ernst: You've either got or you haven't got, Tiddles: got or you haven't got, His Grace and Communicants: got or you haven't got.All Together: Got or you haven't got, got or you haven't got,Got or you haven't got STYLEEEEEE. ;-)

The Church of England in 1980 acknowledged "the fetus has the right to live and (to) develop as a member of the human family" and described abortion as a great moral evil". Nevertheless, it went on to declare: "We do not believe that the right to life, as a right pertaining to persons, admits of no exceptions whatever; but the right of the innocent to life admits surely of few exceptions indeed." and that in some instances abortion is "morally preferable to any available alternative.

The Episcopal Church in the United States of America has a pro-choice stand and has passed resolutions that support abortion rights. The church opposes any government action that limits these "abortion rights.

It would seem that "What was true yesterday is true also today" on both contraception and abortion is not a universal position.

Ms Gasper asked "I am intrigued to find that Way of Dodo is a fundamentalist who believes literally in the Virgin birth. How then do you explain that the commonest title Jesus is given in the New Testament is "Son of David"? See Matthew 9:27 and Luke 18.39. His descent from King David through his father Joseph was taken for granted by his contemporaries, until Graeco-Roman myth-makers got hold of the story at least 150 years later."

I am intrigued to hear how you answer this as the answer is obvious from a student of the bible or even someone who has read all 4 gospels and understands the legality of the law of Moses, which Ms Gasper obviously does NOT!

What a rude woman you are for one with political ambitions. You must culteivate a more pleasant manner.

How could Jesus be the 'Son of David' if David lived approximately 1000 years before Jesus? Well, the answer is that Christ (the Messiah) was the fulfillment of the prophecy of the seed of David (2 Samuel 7:14-16). Jesus was the promised Messiah, which meant He was of the seed of David.

Matthew 1 gives the genealogical proof that Jesus, in His humanity, was a direct descendant of Abraham and David through Joseph, Jesus' legal father. The genealogy in Luke chapter 3 gives Jesus' lineage through His mother, Mary.

Jesus is a descendant of David, by adoption through Joseph, and by blood through Mary. Primarily though, when Christ was referred to as the Son of David, it was meant to refer to His Messianic title as the Old Testament prophesied concerning Him.

How then do you explain that the commonest title Jesus is given in the New Testament is "Son of David" (It is His proof of Title as Mashiakh as only through David would come The Anonited One! Firstly, it was a generally received opinion at this time in Judea, that the Messiah should be son of David. (see John 7:42, Isa 11:10, 2 Samuel 23:5).

Secondly,that Jesus Christ was generally and incontestably acknowledged as coming from this stock. Matthew 12:23. 23: And all the [crowds of] people were stunned with bewildered wonder and said, This cannot be the Son of David, can it?)?

See Matthew 9:27 (I did but you miss the point of why the 2 blind men adressed Him with this title.. Isaiah 35:5, the messianic verse "Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped," and Luke 18.39 (Ditto!). His descent from King David through his father Joseph was taken for granted by his contemporaries (Nonsense, The Scribes and pharisees as His contemporaries did not agree with this statement and said so, forcing Jesus retort who THEIR REAL FATHER was!!), until Graeco-Roman myth-makers got hold of the story at least 150 years later (Where are your specific evidences of this??)."

Matthew gives the genealogical proof that Jesus, in His humanity, was a direct descendant of Abraham and David through Joseph, Jesus' legal father. Matthew gives the proof that He was The Messiah descended from the promise to Abraham to be fulfilled through David but you miss the problem with the lineage through Solomon down to the blood curse on Jeconiah..According to the Bible, it had become impossible for a legitimate and qualified Messiah to have an earthly father due to the spiritual downfall of King Solomon and his descendants. As a result, the Messiah could only have a heavenly Father. When the LORD God promised Abraham and Sarah a son, Genesis 17:17 records Abraham's reaction, "Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?" But just as God promised, Sarah had a son and they named him Isaac. Moreover, it was through this miraculous birth between a hundred-year old man and a ninety-year old woman that Almighty God established His everlasting covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

But God's promise to David was certainly unconditional, for according to Psalm 89:35-36 and Psalm 132:11, He swore by His holiness that He would not turn from it. In contrast, God's promise to David's descendants was NOT unconditional since it was a promise that was made with provisions, contingencies and stipulations.

According to Jeremiah 22:24-30, Jeconiah's descendants were cursed by Almighty God and declared ineligible to claim the throne of David. As a result of this curse, Almighty God Himself terminated his genealogical line. Since these are the facts, who can be the progenitor of the Messiah? Does Israel have an earthly candidate who would qualify? If so, do the Hebrew Scriptures provide the name of such an individual? The answers to all of these questions are a collective "No."

Therefore, eliminating all prospects for the Messiah to come from the royal line of David through Solomon, the only logical conclusion would require Almighty God Himself to become the Father of the Messiah. In like manner, it would be through another miraculous birth that God would establish His New and everlasting Covenant with all of mankind, through the virgin birth of His only-begotten Son, Jesus of Nazareth.

We see in these unique illustrations of the two geneaologies that there are three fathers involved. 1. Jesus' was literally linked by flesh through Mary's father Heli to King David and Mary inherited ALL that would have been given to her had she been a son under the application of inheritance under Numbers 27:1-11 applied by God to the daughters of Zelophehad and confirmed by Joshua 17:4. Heli legally adopted Joseph (Joseph became his son -in- LAW) who inherited all that Mary was entitled to under the provision and exception of the Law of Moses as Heli had no sons!!!

2. Then there is Jesus' earthly adoptive father, Jacob, which God cursed his line that there would not come a King to sit on the throne.

3. Finally there was Jesus' true heavenly Father 'signifying' that this is the real royal heritage that would make Him the prophesied King to ascend to the throne of David. Heli, father of Mary, the literal seed of King David, brought the kingly flesh to this prophecy, but God brought the Kingly heritage and the power to rule.

Luke's genealogy doesn't use begat, and rather than trace back to Abraham, traces the descent back to Adam, 'illustrating' how this lineage goes through the whole human family, and thus showing Christ to be the fulfillment of the promised 'Seed of the Woman/Son of Man.' Thus Luke's genealogy is also of David's seed, but has a path which turns sharp right and which goes through the line of his son Nathan, and then through to Mary's father Heli. By contrast the Matthew's genealogy goes through David's son Solomon, and then through Jechonias (matthew 1:12) who's seed is forbidden to rule on the throne of david. This line leads to Jacob the father of Joseph. Thus Christ could never come through this path.

Blofeld

ps

Women are not Patriarch references in God's Biblical genealogies or generations. From Father to Son the lists are created. So. in short, in the genealogy of Mary, by custom her father had to be the one listed in the genealogical line to David when tracing the fleshly link. , mothers are NEVER listed as patriarch references.

Mind you, I've never really understood why we congratulate each other on this "accomplishment"; though plaudits are obviously well-deserved when a healthy foetus is brought to full term and successfully ejected into this "valley of tears." That takes a bit more care, skill, and good fortune.

"Valley of Tears" it is, though -- and history shows that is as true for royalty as for commoners. Thus I pray for this new development and his/her parents; I ask that they all may bear their destinies royally and to the advantage of the British people.

Oh --- and that doesn't depend in the least on the way he/she decides to hold a stem glass.

Mr Integrity at 12:11. One suspects our man has renegotiated his advertising contract (…it was one post a calendar day, wasn’t it Archbishop ?…). The poor fellow must have been exhausted by that at times. Fortunately, we can now expect him to post at his pleasure, probably.

We should all take it to heart he will no longer tolerate the bull of late, and that all submissions be of the upmost relevance and seriousness.

The Inspector is your humble servant Sir, and a former sinner who has repented, and seen the light… {AHEM}

Bluedog. As a general rule, a sense of well-being in females is conducive to pregnancy.

It is no co-incidence fertility rates have been falling since the 1970s in the western world, old hound. Taking women away from their predominately house wife role and throwing them into the paid labour market has subjected them to the stresses and strains that were formerly associated with just men, whose general robustness allows them to better cope with trials of employment.

Combine this with an increasingly lengthening commuting time and a working week that is, unwisely in this man’s view, stuck around 37 hours a week, and the female body unconsciously decides it would be unwise to conceive as this would put an additional burden on it’s system. One wonders if Kate’s problems are resulting from this truth…

Interestingly, Victorian medicine was very much rest orientated. No pill for anything then, you see. Wise fellows, so they were…

What do we want. 35 hours. When do we want it, now ! For the sake of our very survival in sufficient numbers if nothing else…

Humanae Vitae stands as Pope Benedict said, "a sign of contradiction but also of continuity of the Church's doctrine and tradition... What was true yesterday is true also today."

It has been under attack since its publication. Its the first time in the modern era a Papal teaching has been met with open dissent from the laity about teachings of the Church. This was voiced widely and publicly. Within two days of the encyclical's release, a group of dissident theologians, led by Rev. Charles Curran, issued a statement claiming that Catholics' individual consciences should prevail in such a personal and private issue.

It contains a clear and uncompromising message.

Marital relations are more than a union of two people. They constitute a union of the loving couple with a loving God, in which the two persons create a new person materially, while God completes the creation by adding the soul. For this reason, Paul VI teaches that the transmission of human life is a most serious role in which married people collaborate freely and responsibly with God the Creator. This is a divine partnership, not allowing for arbitrary human decisions, which may limit divine providence. The question of human procreation, exceeds specific disciplines such as biology, psychology, demography or sociology.

The encyclical also opens with an assertion of the competency of the magisterium of the Catholic Church to decide questions of morality. It then goes on to observe that circumstances often dictate that married couples should limit the number of children, and that the sexual act between husband and wife is still worthy even if it can be foreseen not to result in procreation. Nevertheless, it is held that the sexual act must "retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life", and the "direct interruption of the generative process already begun" is morally unlawful.

Please note Inspector this is he basis of Catholic teaching on heterosexual marriage, contraception and abortion.

Mr Inspector @ 18.14, you make a very sound point, although beware the wrath of the sisterhood for uttering the truth.

Combining a career and parenthood inevitably puts enormous and unreasonable pressure on women. The original feminists were largely upper middle-class blue-stockings who worried more about the servant problem than the practicalities of managing a job, a family and a husband.

The only hope is for a new generation of women to say, this is rubbish, we can't be everything to everybody, we must concentrate on our children.

Bluedog it gets worse. When these career women do manage to knock a live one out, there is an increasing possibility they end up with an inferior product, to wit, offspring with autism, asthma, and those behavioural problems. What is truly worrying is these women are apparently healthy, and what we would consider healthy breeding stock. We cannot rule out the possibility stress hormones and the like coursing through the babies’ systems are causing profound damage in brain and body development.

But as you say, any research to back this up would be suppressed. Feminism and what passes for equality these days is far too precious to the liberals to allow something as trivial as the next generations health to interrupt it.

John one’s brother and his wife turned out three boys. Their mother was hoping for a girl but gave up after the third lad. The house was full, although as the Inspector pointed out to the couple, they have a somewhat spacious garden shed that could at a push, be converted into a bedroom.

Anyway to get to the point. One’s brother called it a day, and rather than face the rest of his life in enforced celibacy, he did ‘the unthinkable’ so to speak. A handy side effect is that his wife did not leave the house alone in the evening once or twice a week to go ‘up town’ and then to arrive back in the morning...

Do ‘get real’, as you American chappies put it, there’s a good fellow. God understands, so can you too.

Julia Gasper said: I am intrigued to find that Way of Dodo is a fundamentalist who believes literally in the Virgin birth.

What is the alternative to believing "literally" in the virgin birth? Believing it to be metaphorical? Figurative? How is this rational given the literary context of the book? And what is it a metaphor for? (Also a questionable use of "fundamentalist".)

How then do you explain that the commonest title Jesus is given in the New Testament is "Son of David"? See Matthew 9:27 and Luke 18.39.

Because he was legally in the line of David by descent from his adoptive father, Joseph. Otherwise, when we say Christians are "sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3:26), do you take that to mean we are by blood children of God? (Also, Mary was descended from David.)

His descent from King David through his father Joseph was taken for granted by his contemporaries, until Graeco-Roman myth-makers got hold of the story at least 150 years later.

This is bizarrely contradictory, given that the source you gave for the "Son of David" title comes from the same (contemporary) books that talk about Jesus being born of a virgin. These books were written long before 150AD, even by very liberal estimates.

Putting words in other people's mouths by changing or selecting the meaning to serve your point of view is a wonderful way to antagonise other people. It's not going to convince anyone that what they think is wrong- just that our language is complete with ambiguities that people will exploit.

"Do ‘get real’, as you American chappies put it, there’s a good fellow. God understands, so can you too."

So the Church's authority isn't "real"?

"No member of the faithful could possibly deny that the Church is competent in her magisterium to interpret the natural moral law."

That means members in communion with the Church accept its authority.

"It is in fact indisputable, as Our predecessors have many times declared, that Jesus Christ, when He communicated His divine power to Peter and the other Apostles and sent them to teach all nations His commandments, constituted them as the authentic guardians and interpreters of the whole moral law, not only, that is, of the law of the Gospel but also of the natural law. For the natural law, too, declares the will of God, and its faithful observance is necessary for men's eternal salvation."

This authority is based on Christ's commission to Peter and the Apostles.

It's one thing Protestants denying this but a Catholic?

"In carrying out this mandate, the Church has always issued appropriate documents on the nature of marriage, the correct use of conjugal rights, and the duties of spouses."(Humanae Vitae: 1.4)

Understand?

And I see you have put your rather unique spin on the picture you paint of your brother's situation. I doubt his wife would have behaved in the way you suggest. Voluntary continence for a week or so is surely a hardship (pun intended) he and his wife could gave managed? Food is always more enjoyable after a short fast!

Dodo the Taliban Catholic bird. The Inspector’s brother was 34 when his family was complete, and his wife 33. Are you seriously expecting a Catholic family to rely on the rhythm method until the chap can no longer achieve and maintain you know what. And what is the rhythm method ? A conscious attempt to bypass fertilisation for the sake of mere earthly pleasure.

My God bird, under your understanding, the rhythm method is none other than a slap to the face to God, is it not !

... the very point of predestination is that God's will cannot be thwarted. If this woman is predestined to have sex, then God will also predestine the appropriate conditions for this, such as not having a headache."

Has God also predetermined the appropriate conditions for 40-50 million babies to be killed in mother's their wombs annually and their eternal souls, accordingly to your beliefs, to be condemned to Hell?

Dodo the Taliban Catholic bird. There is aq well known tale about the British royal family. The saying by them, “They are more royal than we are”. In reference to obsequious flunkies and courtiers tghat they encounter. The message to you, Mr Know All is this. God forbid that any of us are more godly than God himself...

It's quite simple really. It's not the consequence of not having children. Infertile couples can licitly have sex; people can be having sex morally and fail to conceive.

It's not even the intention not to have children. Couples can intend not to have children for moral reasons, for example to space out their family properly. This is why NFP is fine. Intending not to conceive for adequate reason is not and has never been the issue.

The problem is the deliberate separation of sex in two: pleasurable, relieving and unitive on the one hand, for the purpose of procreation on the other.

Think of it this way: If you eat food whilst ill and can't hold it down, that's fine.

If you deliberately fast in order to lose weight, that's fine.

But to eat a meal and then deliberately to throw it up is desperately unhealthy. Everyone saw that save the libertines who practised it.

It's wrong because the strength of our desire for food and the way it tastes are deliberately geared towards being nutritive. Its being nutritive is deliberately and designedly bound to its being tasty and desirable. Separating the two is consequently ugly and unhealthy.

Just as you can be sick if ill without doing anything wrong, you can have sex whilst infertile.

Just as you can abstain from food in order to lose weight and eat luxuries in small doses as rewards, so you can abstain from sex during periods of fertility and have sex during periods of infertility.

Just as it would be unhealthy always to abstain from food, so, if you are married, it would be unhealthy to always abstain from sex. Food should be desirable and enjoyable, and even when it is not it should be sought after some time for nutrition. If you don't want nutrition then there is an implicit despair there, which is a sin. Likewise sex ought to be desirable and enjoyable, and even if it were not is should be sought after some time for procreation. If you are married and wish never to procreate, then there is an implicit despair there, which is a sin.

And just as it would be utterly repugnant and unhealthy to eat and then deliberately to cause yourself to be sick, in order to separate the taste from the nutrition, so it is repugnant and unhealthy to deliberately contracept in order to separate the pleasure of sex from procreation.

It's a hard teaching to live by in the modern world, but it is a very simple one to understand. Contraception and NFP are only alike as regards consequences and intentions; but whilst the latter can be sinful, the intention not to have children is not always sinful. The problem is the intention to deliberately divide sex up in order to thwart its purpose. The analogy to food, far from being gratuitous, should make this immediately obvious.

I'm sure that the logic makes sense to you, even if you find it hard to accept, right?

Dodo: Has God also predetermined the appropriate conditions for 40-50 million babies to be killed in mother's their wombs annually and their eternal souls, accordingly to your beliefs, to be condemned to Hell?

God has predetermined all abortions and miscarriages yes; but what makes you think I believe that babies who die/are killed go to hell?

More to the point, on your account of the matter is God sitting relaxedly back letting us get on with the murder of the unborn? I believe he is working everything out according to his purposes, and there's no such thing as meaningless evil because God is working out his good purposes through it. Can you say the same?

Fellows, you both appear to show a poor comprehension of what you state as predetermination or Fate/Destiny.

This is NOT biblical or should have any place in our understanding of God and We and our relationship.Your basis premise means that fatalism rules.

Fatalism is a very important premise of Islam, which demands total submission to the sovereignty of Allah (Their god..What has this to do with us?). It is widely held in Hinduism, too; in fact, it is a fatalistic view of life that helps keep India’s caste system in place(It was meant to be so let it be?!). Classical Greek mythology told of the Moirai, or the Fates, three goddesses pictured as weavers of men’s lives. Their decisions could not be canceled or annulled, even by other gods. Again, fatalism is not a biblical concept.

Our Bible teaches us that Man was created with the ability to make moral choices and that he/she is responsible for those choices. The Fall of Man was not a predetermined event in which Adam and Eve were hapless victims of a Puppet-Master God. On the contrary chaps, Adam and his wife had the ability to choose obedience (with its promised blessing) or disobedience (with its consequent curse). They knew what the result of their decision would be, and they were held accountable (see Genesis 3).

We sin, most unfortunately, because we choose to. We can’t blame 'Fate,' kismet, predestination, or God. The Lord's brother said, James 1:13-14 , "When tempted, no one should say, ‘God is tempting me.’ For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed."

Often, when the Bible speaks of destiny, it’s in reference to a destiny people have brought upon themselves, as those who 'put away' their unborn children for selfish reasons may soon discover !!

"I believe he (God) is working everything out according to his purposes, and there's no such thing as meaningless evil because God is working out his good purposes through it."

You may be right. I've often wondered about this possibility too. Is your theory "god" may be a cold and ruthhless being who enjoys watching us suffer and trip and fall over and over on our way to fulfill his destiny? Does he sometimes give us "rewards" along the way for our efforts to fulfill his plans? I hope this scenerio is not a possibility because our individual lives would have no meaning or hope other than to fulfill the needs of a "god" with a universe size ego. Does he love us?

If what you said is true what is the meaning of the "meaningless evil" of the Holocaust of the European Jews during WW II by the Nazi's or the tens of millions killed by Stalin and Mao durng the last century too? Or at a personal level a wreck taking place at this very moment killing people in a fiery automobile crash ? I'm not sure I want to worship a "god" who sits back in his easy chair in the universe and clicks his remote control to channel planet earth whenhe is bored and watch the human race suffer unbelievable pain for his "entertainment" like a video game. Then put the blame on us when things turn out bad.

Is it possible that the Holocaust happened so that the modern state of Israel could exist? It can be argued that had the WW II and the Holocaust never happened Israel would not exist today. Would this be an example of "meaningless evil" fulfilling "god's" plans?

I am not capable of understanding all this. But what you said is something to think about.

For Christians, Christ gives us hope, I think this negates the possibility of a "god" who doesn't love and care about each of us as unique individuals. This hope can be better explained and defined by a few here who seem to know the Bible. My Biblical knowledge is almost nil.

@Inspector and bluedog.

Spot on with all you said about motherhood and babies.

In the West The family is in ruins. Another generation of youth would rather use drugs to numb their minds and not think about life's pain or eternity. Meanwhile the churches are busy trying to consecrate bishopettes, canonize modern popes, or change the meaning of the Gospels trying to shove "social justice" or liberation theology down our throats. Is it any wonder the pews are empty on Sunday mornings?

Are you both minding your Ps and Qs here as too? I must admit the tone has changed here for the better. I am trying to be very careful what I say and not offend certain people while walking the chalk line as best I can...

Catholic fellows who disapprove of the Inspectors disdain on the Church’s teaching on sex.

Points to consider…

One. It is after all ‘teaching’, not the eleventh commandment. The RCC does not own us, neither is it the RCC responsibility to get our eternal hides into paradise. That is squarely down to us.

Two. We’ve all come across ‘teaching’ we reject. You lads are no different.

Three. This fellow gave up apologising to God for being human over thirty years ago. You should all try it. It’s damn liberating. You see, there is no more GUILT.

Four. The highest calling for any Catholic must be to be joined in holy matrimony to another and produce a family. EVERYTHING should be done by the church to encourage that, including keeping it’s damn nose out of the bedroom.

Five. There is nothing ‘holy’ about our genitals. Our bodies are mere carriages for our souls. They are just years away from turning to dust, genitals included. Do not lose sight of that.

Six. There are only two presences in the bed, not three. To suggest God bunks up in there too is damn macabre. Blasted skin crawling, that’s what it is...

Seven. Let’s consider the RCC attitude to bedroom activity during the middle ages and before. Here’s a surprise, there wasn’t any ! And we know what held fast then should still hold fast today, should it not ? Hardly surprising the church didn’t want to know. After all, if you were a priest then, comforting your hundredth parishioner who’s just lost his wife in childbirth, you’d walk away from it too.

Eight. We use artificial means to prolong life. Though of course it can be argued that giving granddad a quadruple bypass is defying God’s intention for his early death.--------------Ninety (sic). What the hell is wrong with limiting the size of your family by artificial means ? Are you people advocating extreme poverty or eternal state benefits as a way of life to fertile couples ?

Now, with that in mind, away with your rot, all of you…

There is nothing more to discuss. There is no room for negotiation. Can’t you see, you’re all becoming holier than God !

So, if you want to chase after people, go after the single and the adulterous types that do this, Boris for example, but leave faithful married people alone. Keep out of their business, as they keep out of yours. (hmmm… Has the Inspector discovered the long lost 11th commandment ?...)

ErnstFellows, you both appear to show a poor comprehension of what you state as predetermination or Fate/Destiny.

This is NOT biblical or should have any place in our understanding of God and We and our relationship.Your basis premise means that fatalism rules.

Perhaps before informing me that I know not of which I speak, you should sort out the difference between fatalism and determinism. I am a determinist, I am not a fatalist.

(It was meant to be so let it be

Which is not the case with determinism. All your references to other religions are irrelevant –that it is found in a non-Christian religion does not make it axiomatically wrong.

Our Bible teaches us that Man was created with the ability to make moral choices

Chapter and verse please, not just some vague waffle.

The Fall of Man was not a predetermined event in which Adam and Eve were hapless victims of a Puppet-Master God.

Show it, don’t just tell it. Also show how it being predetermined makes them hapless victims.

On the contrary chaps, Adam and his wife had the ability to choose obedience (with its promised blessing) or disobedience (with its consequent curse). They knew what the result of their decision would be, and they were held accountable (see Genesis 3).

To use this to undermine determinism requires an equivocation with regards to ability.

The example from James doesn’t rule out God using secondary causes to do so, as he specifically does in Scripture.

Now away with this paganistic philosophy and read your bibles.

I find it laughable when someone believing in Aristotelian versions of libertarian free will accuses me of pagan philosophy, especially when no Biblical proof is brought to bear for his own pagan view.

I believe that even through the bad events that God brings about through his sovereign decree, he intends them for good, for example the whole affair with Joseph, or most especially the cross. Even the greatest evil ever committed, that the book of Acts reports that God predetermined, is used to bring about the salvation of God’s people. Whilst we might not here know the reason for every evil that happens, we can be sure that God is using it for his good purposes, whatever those may be. In the same way that if you look at the back of a tapestry, it may look a chaotic mess, but from the front it is a beautiful image, whilst the world to us might look like a mess, in the broader context of God’s tapestry of history it is being worked out to a beautiful image. In heaven, I believe we’ll see and understand.

About His Grace:

Archbishop Cranmer takes as his inspiration the words of Sir Humphrey Appleby: ‘It’s interesting,’ he observes, ‘that nowadays politicians want to talk about moral issues, and bishops want to talk politics.’ It is the fusion of the two in public life, and the necessity for a wider understanding of their complex symbiosis, which leads His Grace to write on these very sensitive issues.

Cranmer's Law:

"It hath been found by experience that no matter how decent, intelligent or thoughtful the reasoning of a conservative may be, as an argument with a liberal is advanced, the probability of being accused of ‘bigotry’, ‘hatred’ or ‘intolerance’ approaches 1 (100%).”

Follow His Grace on

The cost of His Grace's conviction:

His Grace's bottom line:

Freedom of speech must be tolerated, and everyone living in the United Kingdom must accept that they may be insulted about their own beliefs, or indeed be offended, and that is something which they must simply endure, not least because some suffer fates far worse. Comments on articles are therefore unmoderated, but do not necessarily reflect the views of Cranmer. Comments that are off-topic, gratuitously offensive, libelous, or otherwise irritating, may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on any thread does not constitute their endorsement by Cranmer; it may simply be that he considers them to be intelligent and erudite contributions to religio-political discourse...or not.

The Anglican Communion has no peculiar thought, practice, creed or confession of its own. It has only the Catholic Faith of the ancient Catholic Church, as preserved in the Catholic Creeds and maintained in the Catholic and Apostolic constitution of Christ's Church from the beginning.Dr Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1945-1961

British Conservatism's greatest:

The epithet of 'great' can be applied only to those who were defining leaders who successfully articulated and embodied the Conservatism of their age. They combined in their personal styles, priorities and policies, as Edmund Burke would say, 'a disposition to preserve' with an 'ability to improve'.

I am in politics because of the conflict between good and evil, and I believe that in the end good will triumph.Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher LG, OM, PC, FRS.(Prime Minister 1979-1990)

We have not overthrown the divine right of kings to fall down for the divine right of experts.Harold Macmillan, 1st Earl of Stockton, OM, PC.(Prime Minister 1957-1963)

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.Sir Winston Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, FRS, PC (Can).(Prime Minister 1940-1945, 1951-1955)

I am not struck so much by the diversity of testimony as by the many-sidedness of truth.Stanley Baldwin, 1st Earl Baldwin of Bewdley, KG, PC.(Prime Minister 1923-1924, 1924-1929, 1935-1937)

If you believe the doctors, nothing is wholesome; if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent; if you believe the military, nothing is safe.Robert Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, KG, GCVO, PC.(Prime Minister 1885-1886, 1886-1892, 1895-1902)

I am a Conservative to preserve all that is good in our constitution, a Radical to remove all that is bad. I seek to preserve property and to respect order, and I equally decry the appeal to the passions of the many or the prejudices of the few.Benjamin Disraeli KG, PC, FRS, Earl of Beaconsfield.(Prime Minister 1868, 1874-1880)

Public opinion is a compound of folly, weakness, prejudice, wrong feeling, right feeling, obstinacy, and newspaper paragraphs.Sir Robert Peel, Bt.(Prime Minister 1834-1835, 1841-1846)

I consider the right of election as a public trust, granted not for the benefit of the individual, but for the public good.Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool.(Prime Minister 1812-1827)

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.The Rt Hon. William Pitt, the Younger.(Prime Minister 1783-1801, 1804-1806)